Ice-T: Yeah, it's legal in the United States. It's part of our Constitution. You know, the right to bear arms is because that's the last form of defense against tyranny. Not to hunt. It's to protect yourself from the police.

That was the ultimate part of Bill Whittle's argument, originally posted via comments on Rachel Lucas's blog. Whittle summarized the essay here, but the original, which entailed back and forth arguments with other commenters, was more powerful and riveting.

Is it racist to point out that protecting one's self "from the police" is almost surely a widely held view of most, if not all, blacks? So while it's hardly surprising he would have this attitude, it's heartening to hear him voice his understanding that it ties into our constitutional right to bear arms.

If a quarter of the people were packing, he wouldn't have killed 12 and wounded 70.

If it became widely known that a quarter of the people were routinely packing, he wouldn't have had the balls to do it in the first place.

Lunatics find ways to kill people that prevent any one who is armed from firing a weapon. So if they really want to be Mr. Mayhem, and find their way blocked because some people might be carrying, well just ask yourself how many people were armed in Oklahoma City, for example. Would it have helped if they were all armed?

Your comment is true for the petty thugs of the world but not for off-kilter nutjobs.

"Are we comparing the Soviet Union to the United States? South Africa to Great Britain?"

Yes, actually. I know everyone loves to believe that the United States is somehow magically protected from tyranny, but that's simply not true. It can happen here too and only a fool would believe otherwise.

Heck, I can think of some people who should have guns, even if other people don't. I always imagine some of the women I've met who are 5'2 and maybe over 100 pounds soaking wet. If they want a weapon to protect themselves from people who have every physical advantage over them possible, I'm not going to argue.

Of course we need protection from the police. A good portion of the Bill of Rights serves that purpose. The power of the state is coercive. Sometimes that coercion involves the actual use of guns. More often it just involves the potential for use.

I am not saying that we live in a police state, as that term is most commonly used. Our police are educated in self restraint, and where that education fails we can combat the excesses.

All that said, it's a very bad idea to get into direct conflict with police with weapons. There are more of them, they have better guns and are trained to use them. Armed confrontation did not work out well for the Black Panthers, the Branch Davidians and many others.

"Your comment is true for the petty thugs of the world but not for off-kilter nutjobs."

That is false.

"On January 16, 2002, Peter Odighizuwa came onto the campus of Appalachian Law School and shot dead the school dean, a professor, and a student, and wounded three other students.

Two other students, Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges, retrieved their handguns from their vehicles, forced Odighizuwa to drop his weapon, and with the help of another student, subdued him. Odighizuwa is now in jail for the murders he committed."

It would have been very helpful for the Colorado shooting.

Ain't no 100% promise to being armed and therefore protected from nutjobs, but you are 100% helpless if unarmed.

Yes, from the police. Read Insty for a week and see how many 'no knock' raids by SWAT teams kill innocent people, without the police ever being held responsible.

It might be fashionable to gush about "(Your Town Here)'s Finest," but as it becomes increasingly clear that the police are a heavily armed, unaccountable collection agency in service to protect the political class, Ice-T continues to make a great deal of sense.

Where do you think the Black Panthers came from?

Good Lord in heaven. I actually agree with something Hat wrote. The end days must be upon us.

If you're immersed in the gangster/prison culture w/ your pants sagging and hat askew[not you hatman, you're whiter than Wonder bread although I sense you're a Whegro] then the police statement makes sense.

The police are the only people you are not likely to protect yourself from with a gun. They expect you to be armed. That's why they bust in armed to the teeth with overpowering tactics.

You may shoot one, but that's not going to make things better for you. They won't go home and leave you alone.

I hate the cops doing these home break-ins. I usually have 5 dogs, and they would likely kill them, wrong house or not. It scares the shit out of me, and although I have guns, I would never use them on the cops. That's just life-ending, one way or another. When it comes to the cops being assholes, we need to act politically to reign them in. I do think they are often out of control, and un-American in their tactics.

I like that so many Americans are armed because it has prevented our government as well as foreign ones from considering using force against us. Unfortunately our government has evolved like a sci-fi organism, and developed political ways to accomplish the same thing. We are completely helpless against their coercion through fines, prosecution, and taxes, to refuse to do what they want. Now we can't even refuse to buy things they insist on. Americans have voluntarily agreed to point their own political weapons at their own heads. Guns can't protect us from that.

Mayor Bloomberg suggests that police officers go on strike and refuse to protect the public unless legislatures "do what’s required to keep us safe," by which he means that they should ban guns.

“I don’t understand why police officers across this country don’t stand up collectively and say we’re going to go on strike, we’re not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what’s required to keep us safe,’’ he told CNN’s Piers Morgan.

If you want to imagine how bad it is to have gun-free zones, Imagine if the killer managed to lock the theater doors. He could have killed everyone in there and taken his time to do it, no body armor required. He could execute every. single. one.

well just ask yourself how many people were armed in Oklahoma City, for example. Would it have helped if they were all armed?

Probably not, since most of them were blown up by a big assed bomb and not actually shot.

HOWEVER, if they had known that a truck/bomb was approaching their location, and were armed, they would have had a better chance of blowing the truck up, blowing out the tires, and killing the bombers before they got to the building and thereby cutting down on the carnage.

And yes.....protection from the police. Most of the cops are corrupt, morons, on a power trip and you ARE in danger from the government. Be armed, be prepared or be a lamb to the slaughter. YOUR choice. We have made ours.

Pogo and MadMan both make good points. An armed society can prevent some nutjobs but not all. Look to Israel as an example. They have compulsory conscription for men and women in the IDF, and as a result a majority of citizenry pack heat and know how to use it.

I suspect that has helped thwart many attacks by would-be terrorists, but it hasn't thwarted the occasionally-successful suicide bomber.

Lunatics find ways to kill people that prevent any one who is armed from firing a weapon. So if they really want to be Mr. Mayhem, and find their way blocked because some people might be carrying, well just ask yourself how many people were armed in Oklahoma City, for example.

Perhaps you realize this already but, if true, what you say applies to any obstacle that might be placed in their path. A truckload of fertilizer is an equally effective way around an "assault weapon" ban as well.

Jack, What would you have done if you had a gun in that theater? Would you even want to have one if you were there? Why even call the cops if having a gun makes no difference? Why does nobody ever do this at a firing range or anywhere people can shoot back.

OK ....I take that back about the police. We have many friends who are retired cops and highway patrol and I know that many if not most police are dedicated, well meaning and are putting themselves in harms way.

I apologize to all the people who are reading this who are police or related to police.

I was talking about the local sheriffs in our area. Barney Fife's to a man. The good news is that the police are so far and inbetween that they really don't affect our lives. One guy to patrol a 200 square MILE area at night. When a 'pot garden raid' happens, the word is out well before hand and surprise....no one is there (on the take? shall we say) Local sub station 80 miles away. When crime happens the police are hours away.....not minutes.

although I have guns, I would never use them on the cops. That's just life-ending, one way or another.

The problem is, that little time you spend trying to figure out if the people knocking down your door in the middle of the nights are cops or robbers might cost you something. If you arm yourself and they’re cops, you’re screwed. Ditto if you don’t arm yourself and they’re robbers.

This no knock raid thing is very, very dangerous. It should be only used for well verified hostage situations.

In the run-up to the Wisconsin recall election, IIRC, police and firemen unions threatened that they might not protect businesses that were on the "wrong" side.

It's not just about protecting yourself from hypothetical violence from the police/ government, but being able to protect yourself in the event that the police/ government arbitrarily decides to withhold their protection... because you have the wrong political views, contribute to the wrong political party, vote for the wrong person.

If you're absolutely at the mercy of the police/ government for protection, those threats have a lot of sway indeed. If the police/ government threatens to leave you on your own-- good thing to have a gun.

George Zimmerman was able to protect himself from a beating by using his legally owned firearm. His biggest fear now is the government. How many people will the government bring forth to railroad this man?

As for those claiming that guns offer protection from the police breaking into your home at 1 a.m.: this, too, is a rather stupid comment.

Well, no. It's not stupid. It's not guaranteed to be effective or successful, but it does offer protection. That's really inarguable. Tell you what, you can rely on throwing your soiled underwear at the cops should you be the unfortunate victim of a wrong address no-knock. I'll make alternative security arrangements.

This is just stupid speculation. Incidents like the one in Colorado are quite rare in other countries, whether or not they have strict gun control laws.

They are quite rare in this country as well. Since you don't offer any evidence to support your stats, I'll assume you don't question the validity of news that comes out of other countries like China, Burma, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Cuba.

My point: we don't really know if this is rare or not in other countries. A lot of other countries don't allow the free broadcast of this type of information, as they feel it does not reflect well on them.

That is nonresponsive and unrelated to my point that an armed public acts as a deterrent.

Your claim is speculative, as I said before. The larger point is that even if you can show (with evidence) that encouraging people to carry firearms provides deterrent benefits, you would need to show also that those benefits are greater than the accompanying costs to society.

The murderer here was not irrational.

Mental illness does not imply complete irrationality. Again you are speculating when you claim that an armed audience would have been a deterrent in Colorado.

Who are these people who join the police force? Used to be small town cops had a propensity to be a tad bit unhinged and on self-entitlement power trips. Then with the obvious need to put more minority faces behind badges, big cities like LA blindly recruited gang members and felons.

Of course, none of these disparaging remarks apply to your dear, honest, and fully committed to social justice brother-in-law who joined the force a few years back.

Protection from police? Why not? They are not here to protect me. If I don't protect myself (from them and anyone else dumb enough to cross my threshold) who will?

Full disclosure, I'm a cop. Although one you will probably never meet, which is a good thing for you by the way.

That said, I am very much against no-knock warrants save for very specific circumstances. Normal drug warrants would not qualify by the way.

I'm also a home-owner with a family to protect and I have no less worry about someone breaking into my home at night than the average person. And actually maybe a little more worry.

Whoever does so will be met by an armed person, but in my case anyway, an armed person who knows better than to just start shooting in the dark at loud voices screaming, which in many of these no-knock warrant shootings is the case.

Understand I am not putting the responsibility on the citizen. It belongs rightfully on the police. But just as with concealed carry, a gun owner should actually see what he or she is shooting at and not guess. Doing so allows one to NOT shoot at maybe a kid coming home late or a cop who has made a mistake but certainly doesn't deserve to die for it anymore than a homeowner deserves to die for it.

Oh, I do understand that in the "the fog of war" so to speak in these warrants anything can happen, but unless you live near the Mexican border, groups of bad guys don't normally break in screaming. If that happens you might want to consider it's the cops and start counting the money you can get from your lawsuit. But you can only do that if you are alive.

Again you are speculating when you claim that an armed audience would have been a deterrent in Colorado.

And YOU are speculating that it would NOT.

Body armor or not, three guys shooting at the nutjob with 45 handguns and hitting him in the chest would put him back on his ass and probably stun him enough so that others could rush up and beat him to death or at least restrain him.

Hopefully you don't shoot one of the good guys in the darkened theater that was filled with smoke. This could also be a likely result. People who are armed need to be well trained as well.

In general if the criminal KNOWS that your target(s) are able to defend themselves they might not go ahead with the robbery or plan.

So would it have been a deterrent or maybe not depending on the circumstances. I would prefer to take my chances with some of the audience/public being armed and able to defend instead of cowering like lambs to the slaughter.

@Ken-Don't waste my time with an argument based on a single anecdote. It just makes you look silly without making your case.

An equally effective way to kill people without using assault weapons.

Poor reading comprehension, Ken. All methods of killing people without using assault weapons are not equally effective. For example, your attempt to bore me to death is not bad, but is probably less effective than using a steak knife.

TWM said... ...Understand I am not putting the responsibility on the citizen. It belongs rightfully on the police.

Well, TWM, that's all well and good, but have you ever heard of any police losing their job after a no-knock raid where any innocent person was shot? Have you ever heard of any person involved in authorizing the raid to be held accountable?

Canada and Western Europe is a pretty tiny slice of the world's population. But I wouldn't want you to get hung up in math and stuff. Again, you 'feel' like this doesn't happen much because you 'feel' like you don't hear much of it from other countries. I'm merely puncturing your cocoon by stating you have no clue how much this occurs.

Speculation can be useful, especially if it's based on history or common sense. You should try it sometime.

For instance, from now on, when I see your name at the head of a comment, I'm speculating that it's not thoughtful or serious, and therefore not worth my time. See? Useful speculation, based on history and common sense.

The founding fathers, just having overthrown an oppressive, abusive regime, realized the need for citizens to protect themselves from their own government. Today our own government continues to be the greatest threat to our freedom. I doubt armed insurrection is a good way to deal with this, but that was at least part of the intent of the 2nd amendment.

All methods of killing people without using assault weapons are not equally effective.

Well, that is true. If you are a terrorist or mad killer and want to get the most 'bang for your buck' and get the most impressive and effective numbers of dead per instance. A truck bomb or a suicide bomber wearing a vest is much more effective than an assault weapon.

Unfortunately, you won't look as cool in your spiffy body armor and after the effective event you and your body armor, if you are wearing any, will be vaporized into itty bitty pieces.

The more EFFECTIVE way to stop sick instances like this is to treat the symptom and source of the infection not the method of delivery. Better mental health programs and the ability to isolate and observe people who are giving clear and loud signals that they are not 'right'. Get them some treatment and remove the infection from society.

"Well, TWM, that's all well and good, but have you ever heard of any police losing their job after a no-knock raid where any innocent person was shot? Have you ever heard of any person involved in authorizing the raid to be held accountable?"

Not sure what you want me to say. If an officer violates the law they should be fired and prosecuted. If they screwed-up while acting in good faith their conduct should be reviewed and depending on that review perhaps they should be fired.

Past that, you're getting into politics and I'm very far removed from that kind of stuff, trust me.

I can see how you think it's a single anecdote, but this type of stuff occurs as often as the killing sprees. The difference is that the media doesn't report on it. Ann even linked to another incident where an armed killer was stopped by armed citizens.

I know this messes with your preferred narrative, but you preferred narrative is provably wrong. In fact, guns are used regularly to stop crimes (hundreds of thousands to over a million per year in the US), but the headline "Crime averted by gun owner" just doesn't have the same ring to it as "Over a dozen shot dead in gun free zone". Idiots like you don't even notice these people were gunned down in GUN FREE zones.

Militarization of the police is a dangerous thing. Up until recently, there was a fairly sharp line between police and military. But, now we have the two sharing techniques and weaponry. Stuff learned in the dusty streets of Iraq makes it into the local SWAT team, and visa versa.

And, this is apparently justified by the War on Drugs. But, it is beyond me why it is necessary to break down doors in the early hours of the morning (when most people are the most sound asleep), throw in a flash-bang, shoot the dogs, and use overwhelming force, just to prevent someone from flushing a bag of pot down the toilet. Of course, they identify themselves as cops right after the flash-bangs, so that they will be exonerated for anyone they kill resisting them. Never mind that anyone who is woken up by such from the expected sound sleep is unlikely to hear, more less understand, this notification in the seconds they have before being taken down.

What is making this even scarier, if that is possible, is that liberal activists are now calling in SWAT raids on conservatives by falsely claiming life threatening scenarios on 911 calls.

Note:On April 17, 1995, McVeigh rented a Ryder truck and then McVeigh and Nichols loaded the Ryder truck with approximately 5,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. On the morning of April 19th, McVeigh drove the Ryder truck to the Murrah Federal Building, lit the bomb's fuse, parked in front of the building, left the keys inside the truck and locked the door, then walked across the parking lot to an alley, then started to jog.

In response to my question of would you even want to have a gun if you were in that theater?

Jack Diamond: No.

If the killer was walking toward you and your family and preparing to shoot you all, you would prefer to be unarmed? Would you tell your kids to think nice liberal thoughts as they watched each other be executed?

I won't waste any more time on you. You are either a fool or a fool trolling. Regardless, you have no value to the rest of us.

unless you live near the Mexican border, groups of bad guys don't normally break in screaming. If that happens you might want to consider it's the cops

The minute the response to people breaking into your house in the middle of the night becomes ‘it must be the cops again’ is the minute criminals start using that MO. Same as the ‘blue light rapist’ types and ‘I’m just a census worker here to rob you’ incidents.

If cops are worried about confused homeowners shooting the crazy people who break down the door at 1am (likely not your errant teenage son, btw), they should stop doing that.

Unless you can point to a statement I made concerning curtailing 2nd Amendment rights, you should find a real and honest argument to make.

Speaking of real and honest arguments, Jake, how about telling us how Obama's views on free enterprise are identical to those of Kennedy, Bush, Ford and Clinton? You asserted that, and then curiously vanished when asked to back it up with that latest export from Europe known as "facts."

"...throw in a flash-bang, shoot the dogs, and use overwhelming force, just to prevent someone from flushing a bag of pot down the toilet."

I have never understood the basic logic of that. What the cops do in such an instance is guaranteed to be a worse outcome than if the guy just kept his drugs. It's not worth the danger to the cops, the citizens, or their relationship. It's just straight up stupid. A much better technique would be to wait for him come out of the house and go where he would be alone, visible, and likely unarmed. It's like they storm the castle when they know the king comes out and goes for a walk in the wood every day. It's just stupid, and I think driven by the need to use the equipment and tactics they love to learn. It done because of testosterone overpowering reason, and compassion for the innocent. Cops need to stand up and start being men rather than boys. This isn't some video game.

Jackass Diamond: All methods of killing people without using assault weapons are not equally effective.

DBQ - "Well, that is true. If you are a terrorist or mad killer and want to get the most 'bang for your buck' and get the most impressive and effective numbers of dead per instance. A truck bomb or a suicide bomber wearing a vest is much more effective than an assault weapon."

You want to kill hundreds in a theater or concert - nothing beats 2-3 simple and legal 5 gallon cans of gasoline. Especially if tossed or prelocated at exit location areas with a small explosive to burst and ignite.Fire, smoke inhalation, trampling. Typical death toll from accidental or deliberately set fires like that is 25 up to 680 people.

bagoh20, you posit a hypothetical scenario. I don't know how likely, relevant, or common such things might be.

Bruce Hayden wrote about the division between police and military.

Both of these comments lead to a perhaps counter-intuitive conclusion: the police are, in fact, a military force. They employ force against the populace that they protect.

This is obvious, no? And if so, then bagoh20, the problem is not so much that the cops need to be "men rather than boys", but that we must organize, control, and deploy them (and prosecute them, when necessary) the way we do the military.

"TWM, do you know any 'bad' cops? Are there cops that the public needs to fear?"

Well, first you are going to have to define "bad" a little more specifically. I assume you mean more than just speeding in their patrol cars when they shouldn't be or cutting a buddy a break for a minor traffic ticket or similar stuff. (I'm not nor have I ever been a traffic cop.) If that's the case, no, I don't know any bad cops. They exist I am sure, but I've been fortunate enough to have avoided them

Then again, wait, a guy I worked with a decade ago was indicted for lying in a civil deposition (related to a case), pled guilty and went to jail, so yeah I guess I do know one although I didn't know he was bad then, and he might not have been. Sad, too, he was a nice guy.

Anyway . . .

I do know a few whose personality is a little too, idk, "charged-up" for my taste. But cops are people and imperfect so you have to expect that.

Had this guy simply driven his car into the crowd standing outside the theater before the showing he would have killed and injured just as many people. And we would not be having this conversation. And certainly no one would be demanding we ban white sedans.

Link describing one of the more famous police attacks on an innocent citizen -- in this one they did not make an address mistake - they were possessed of "forfeiture fever" http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/seizure-fever-the-war-on-property-rights/

scroll down to the section regarding Distorted Law Enforcement Priorities, or Google Donald Scott and Forfeiture Fever.

ocketeer said...A truckload of fertilizer is not equally effective as a bomb.

Good grief. That may be the stupidest comment I've seen in a long, long time. It is a bomb, moron.

OK. To be fair he's right. Whether he knows it or not. Just a load of nitrate fertilizer isn't in itself a bomb. There has to be a catalyst and an initiator-I'm not going to give you specifics, but they are devilishly easy to make.

OK. To be fair he's right. Whether he knows it or not. Just a load of nitrate fertilizer isn't in itself a bomb. There has to be a catalyst and an initiator-I'm not going to give you specifics, but they are devilishly easy to make.

Look - I know that, you know that, and he knows that. The fact he didn't spell out the recipe is moot. You are giving him the benefit of a doubt that he does not deserve. He was referring, quite clearly albeit in shorthand, to the type of bomb used in OKC.

Canada and Western Europe is a pretty tiny slice of the world's population. But I wouldn't want you to get hung up in math and stuff. Again, you 'feel' like this doesn't happen much because you 'feel' like you don't hear much of it from other countries. I'm merely puncturing your cocoon by stating you have no clue how much this occurs.

But it's still speculation, right? And it can also be argued that speculation isn't as useful as facts, right?

This argument started because I identified speculation as speculation. You've admitted this, but now you want to argue about the value of speculation. Maybe at this point you should drop the argument and move on.

Can you provide a better dividing line between countries that have such incidents? "Not the USA" is a very inaccurate one.

@Bob-Look at gun violence statistics or whatever other data pleases you. The evidence I've seen supports my statement (links provided in a previous comment). If you have data to show otherwise, post it please.

This argument started because I identified speculation as speculation. You've admitted this, but now you want to argue about the value of speculation. Maybe at this point you should drop the argument and move on.

Yes look at gun violence and gun control. Mexico has stricter gun control than the US, but higher violent crime rates. The UK has stricter gun control that the US, but has higher violent crime rates. Gun ownership is compulsory in Switzerland, yet violent crime rates there are vanishingly small.

A lot of research shows that increased gun ownership reduces violent crime. This is one of the reasons that violent crime in places like Chicago and DC, where gun ownership is severely restricted, are far higher than violent crime in the countryside, where gun ownership is fairly high.

I know this messes with your preferred narrative, but you preferred narrative is provably wrong.

Sorry Ken but you're expressing your opinion, not offering proof.

The fact remains that per capita gun violence in the United States is quite high compared to other western nations. You haven't offered any proof that an armed citizenry is the solution to that problem.

Jake Diamond opined: The fact remains that per capita gun violence in the United States is quite high compared to other western nations. You haven't offered any proof that an armed citizenry is the solution to that problem.

The United States probably has a much greater range of psychological phenotypes than any other nation. Every character is expressed here. Just look at Althouse's blog as a microcosm: there's one of every kind and flavor here. Do we find that range of expression in other country's blogospheres? I honestly don't know. But you, sir, dude, you offer no proof that an unarmed citizenry would lead to fewer nutjobs.

If the killer was walking toward you and your family and preparing to shoot you all, you would prefer to be unarmed?

I prefer to live my life unarmed. It's a personal choice, but since you asked, you should take the time to think about my answer.

While it would be handy to have a weapon in the unbelievably rare circumstances you describe, the fact of the matter is that in almost every moment of my life that I would be carrying that gun, it would provide no benefit but would carry a nonzero risk. Rational people weigh benefits and costs, taking associated risks into account. My calculation leads me to the conclusion that carrying a weapon would increase rather than decrease the risk to me, family, friends and the community.

If you want to make this a fantasyland game where loaded guns suddenly appear with the wave of the hand when needed, then yes, I would magically wave my hand to produce a weapon as needed. In reality, though, where I live, decisions are more complicated, and the full consequences of choices have to be considered.

@Jake Diamond: Why are you picking a fight over the chemical components of truck bombs? Yes the ammonium nitrate is not the fuel--the Sterling Hall guys used diesel fuel or heating oil combined with NH4NO3. The nitrogenous stuff just adds oomph. I covered that here.

Jake, you're starting to remind me of a guy who hung around here once and whined that people didn't understand global warming because they couldn't appreciate the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide.

The fact remains that per capita gun violence in the United States is quite high compared to other western nations. You haven't offered any proof that an armed citizenry is the solution to that problem.

You know the funny thing is that I read the jurisprudence of 100+ years ago held that the 2nd Amendment was strictly for military arms. And that a derringer was held to be illegal by the then SCOTUS because it was not a military grade weapon.

Bruce Hayden wrote:And, this is apparently justified by the War on Drugs. But, it is beyond me why it is necessary to break down doors in the early hours of the morning (when most people are the most sound asleep), throw in a flash-bang, shoot the dogs, and use overwhelming force, just to prevent someone from flushing a bag of pot down the toilet.

because cops are not omniscient and know that all that's going to happen behind a closed door. the person behind the closed door might just as well have an arsenal of assault rifles. Also, you worry about cops being trained like the military and having military type weapons? Well think about what your everyday citizen can buy. If cops have to deal with people who have potential access to assault rifles, you don't send them into the lions den with pea shooters. I'm not arguing against the right to bear arms, I'm simply stating that police have to police in such a world,and as such need sufficient weaponry to do their jobs. It's a double edged sword.

The larger point is that even if you can show (with evidence) that encouraging people to carry firearms provides deterrent benefits, you would need to show also that those benefits are greater than the accompanying costs to society.

By law, guns are more tightly controlled on military bases than they are almost anywhere off-base. You are allowed to have guns in your residence, but not in barracks. If you live in barracks, you must leave any firearms in the armory. All weapons not currently being used in weapons training are locked in the armory. Armories are designed and constructed to prevent unauthorized entry for several hours, even if under assault by advanced equipment. They are wired with alarms out the wazoo. Very few people have keys. No less than 2-person accountability for weapons and ammunition is required at all times. Ammunition is stored separately from the weapons.The only exceptions to this are the military police.

So, yeah: Hasan targeted a location he knew would be gun-free for the first several minutes of his attack.

The larger point is that even if you can show (with evidence) that encouraging people to carry firearms provides deterrent benefits, you would need to show also that those benefits are greater than the accompanying costs to society.

Japan has had 2 seperate instances where attacks with knives led to just as many deaths as this theater shooting.

Ahh--I see Jake has moved on from his last thread--in that thread he asked for evidence of one of his assertions, which I provided--and then I asked him for his evidence--with tail between his legs he moved on to this thread--Jake is not only clueless but a coward as well. Unable to answer a simple question.

But do carry on Jake--we have had a much better class of trolls on this blog, and sadly, you arent one of them.

Oh Jake, you are frickin' hilarious. Here is an excerpt from your Wikipedia links:

List of events named massacres:This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness.

So, the evidence that supports your claim is merely a list of events that include the term 'massacre' in their name. The application of 'massacre' is not scientific or well-defined; it's just whatever suits the fancy of the journalists or historians that write about it. And many of those 'massacres' in your list are military engagements, where all of those killed are military participants, not citizens. So that part of your claim is worse than useless.

Then Jay posts 2009 data from the European Commission on violent crime, which trumps your little Wikipedia table from the 2000 United Nations report. Wrong again.

Could we possibly make a little edit to one of your statements, though? As a general rule, of course you're right that a "cop who has made a mistake ... doesn't deserve to die for it", but that a cop whose mistake involves launching a paramilitary assault against the wrong target comes a lot closer to deserving it? At the very least such a mistake should place the cop in jeopardy of the felony murder rule, rather than the more-usual sovereign immunity.

"By law, guns are more tightly controlled on military bases than they are almost anywhere off-base. "

Not to get us too far off the main point, but isn't that mostly up to the base commander's discretion? I seem to recall (while simultaneously being too lazy to try to find it at the moment) a recent flap about newly-tightened restrictions at some of the Alaska bases...

The larger point is that even if you can show (with evidence) that encouraging people to carry firearms provides deterrent benefits, you would need to show also that those benefits are greater than the accompanying costs to society.

That's backwards, actually. We have the basic human right to keep and bear arms. Those who wish to deprive us of that right are the ones who must demonstrate a sufficiently large benefit to doing so.

a cop who has made a mistake but certainly doesn't deserve to die for it anymore than a homeowner deserves to die for it

This is backwards as well. It isn't about what the intruder deserves -- it is about what the homeowner deserves.

What the homeowner deserves is freedom from violent intrusion. If armed men break into your house, you have the right to repel them with lethal force. It is ridiculous to require that you first make absolutely sure they aren't cops who "made a mistake".

Particularly since the cops themselves, if they see you with a gun, will shoot YOU without taking any time at all to determine if you're a criminal or an innocent homeowner.

I find it amusing that so many people are mocking Jake for not understanding Paul's "equally effective" comment, when they themselves didn't understand what Paul was saying. Read Paul's comment, and the comment he was responding to, again.

MadisonMan pointed out that an armed citizenry didn't stop Oklahoma City, and Paul was pointing out that gun control wouldn't have stopped it either.

The truckload of fertilizer isn't equally effective as as something else, it is equally effective at something else.

Let's do the calculations for the math-unable: That Finland figure (2 in 5 years) would translate to 110 in 5 years for the US. I don't have any way to count them, but I'm pretty sure we aren't having 22 mass shootings per year here!

Jake Diamond:The truck contained ammonium nitrate and nitromethane (which is not a fertilizer component). Why did you withhold the full information about the components of the truck bomb?

Good grief. You seem reasonably intelligent, so I'm going to assume that it didn't get by you that "a truck full of fertilizer" is shorthand for a bigass bomb.

I see you're trying to flex your debating muscles here, so here's some advice: don't get hung up on nitpicky shit like this. You know what was communicated, so address that.

And really, incidents like this aren't that common over here either. Mass shootings are rather rare everywhere except for war zones and failed states. That's why they make news. Note that more people got shot in Chicago this month than in that theater, but that doesn't make headlines because not all of them were shot at once.

Widespread private ownership of firearms is effective, or at least useful, against a "police state". An individual with a firearm is completely ineffective against "the police", and to think otherwise is just a silly form of suicide.

Then maybe they should wait until they leave the house? A good chunk of this crap is used for non-violent offenders. Or, you know, complete innocents trying to sleep.

How about the chunk of the crap used for violent offenders? And what's to stop people from simply staying in the house for days on end. Should cops camp in front of peoples homes until the run out of food so that they can then arrest them?

Are you ok with cops chasing people who steal cars for example, even if in doing so someone innocent who happens to be driving by gets hurt? I suppose there too we can wait till the go home and then arrest them there. Unless of course the rules apply whereby once they're home we should wait till they leave?

Shanna wrote:If cops are worried about confused homeowners shooting the crazy people who break down the door at 1am (likely not your errant teenage son, btw), they should stop doing that.

they do worry about that (people behind the door taking shots at them with high powered weapons, which is why they sometimes resort to no knock raids. The assumption at the time of course, is that they have the right address, so the no knock raid is justified in their minds. And certainly if it's the wrong address they will most likely be faced with a lawsuit and havoc can ensue. But take away that ability and almost all raids become standoffs where those behind the door are waiting to blast whoever walks in.

If you want a world with guns, then expect cops to break down doors with their own guns to get a drop on those behind said doors who may very well kill them with said guns, while they are carrying out warrants that are issued by judges.If mistakes are made on both sides, thems the breaks.

People who are actively breaking the law can make the exact same argument about how they are defending themselves from the cops as law abiding citizens do.

I would amend Ice T's statement to that to say protect from govt when it becomes tyrannical. Criminals, who also have gun rights would say they are protecting themselves from cops in furtherance of their law breaking. Is he arguing that criminals should have the right to protect themselves from the police when cops are trying to bring them to justice? Is enforcement of law tyranny in and of itself?

This is not to say that the idea that having a gun to defend yourself is somehow wrong. Only, I think Ice T, aka Cop Killer is making an argument that from some would not be used as a defense against tyrannical govt, but lawful govt.

Rev wrote:This is backwards as well. It isn't about what the intruder deserves -- it is about what the homeowner deserves.

What the homeowner deserves is freedom from violent intrusion. If armed men break into your house, you have the right to repel them with lethal force. It is ridiculous to require that you first make absolutely sure they aren't cops who "made a mistake".

no, They are protected from unlawful searches and seizures not ANY search and seizure or any form of intrusion.

Kirk wrote:Me: Sorry, jr, the crap is mostly on your side. Law enforcement officers on patrol have an on-the-job fatality rate that's far below the most dangerous occupations.

Whatever their job fatality rate is irrelevant. Me saying that was in reference to Rev's assertion that if they find the job too dangerous they can quit. THat is the crap argument, not whether cops are statistically more likely to die than in other danagerous jobs.

Perhaps you could go a bit further and explain why you think it's a bad argument? Seems self-evidently true on the face of it.

And I suppose I could have made my point more explicit--being in law enforcement does not puts you in the middle ground of dangerous occupations, so if person A finds it too risky, there's going to be person B, C, or D who's just fine with it.

Kirk,Lets go back to what I respond to and then what Rev argued.The argument initially was stated as follows: But, it is beyond me why it is necessary to break down doors in the early hours of the morning ...just to prevent someone from flushing a bag of pot down the toilet.My response was:because cops are not omniscient and know that all that's going to happen behind a closed door. the person behind the closed door might just as well have an arsenal of assault rifles.

In other words the assumption that we know ahead of time that all the cops are going to do is prevent someone from flushing some pot down a toilet is false. Because cops are not going to know what they'll necessarily find behind a closed door until they go through a door. It COULD be someone flushing pot, or it could be someone with a machine gun. Its' confusing what cops find after breaking down a door to what cops know before breaking down the door which requires hindsight. Since they don't know, but are breaking down the door, they need to go in with weapons that will protect them from the potential threats behind the door (and that is there because everyday people can have things like assault rifles).

To that Rev replied:If they think their job is too dangerous, they can quit. WHich is a pretty dicky. So argued that that assertion is crap (that if they don't like it they should quit). I"m simply pointing out the dangers a cop faces when going into any door. SInce people htink they have a right to assault rifles and what have you, cops have to expect that those who's houses they raid might have said weapons and have to be prepared, with weapons of their own. It's not an argument that Rev has to disarm. Only those arguing that they ahve the right to own assault rifles shoudl recognize that because of that,cops are going to arm themselves to deal with said potential threats, and since what's behind any closed door is not known, are going to take measures to safeguard their lives, which include no knock raids, using flash bangs, using overwhelming force.

I didn't argue that cops thought their jobs were too dangerous, I argued that because cops don't know what's going to happen when they go on a raid, and because society allows for people to have things like assault rifles, they have to take that into accoutn when they are going to break a door down. Which means their response will factor in that threat. Cops are not complaining about what they'll find behind a closed door.

Back to Bruce Hayden:Militarization of the police is a dangerous thing. Up until recently, there was a fairly sharp line between police and military. But, now we have the two sharing techniques and weaponry. Stuff learned in the dusty streets of Iraq makes it into the local SWAT team, and visa versa.

But,those arguing for second amendment rights are arguing that they should be able to buy weapons normally reserved for the military (and not simply hunting rifles or what have you), As such the civilians have become militarized as well. So then why would you complain about cops being armed with "military" weapons to deal with people/criminals/civilians having assault rifles. You can't have it both ways.

Now, I'm not saying that therefore assault rifles should be banned. I'm just saying, with said rights come certian consequences.